Greg Epstein on Interfaith Politics

Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplin at Harvard, published some advice to Obama (and McCain, though he admits the Republicans wouldn't bother to listen). I like Greg and his down-to-earth, practical stance on things. He doesn't jump immediately into slamming religion, but looks at America as a melting pot, with respect to religion as well as race; and purports that humanists and atheists need to be part of that melting pot.

The article is worth a read, check it out here.

Is Obama as bad as Bush?

I was looking forward to getting the republicans out of office and to getting a democrat in who might tone down the faith-based programs and get back to basing our government and its decisions on reason and science.

Instead, the democrats must think they need to bend and become more religious to win the election. After everything Bush has done during the last two terms of service, you would think that the democrats would have a fairly easy win (at least now that Hilary isn't in the running).

Check out this article on Yahoo News about Obama and his faith program. Most disturbing of all was his emphasis on doing God's work in office:

Obama showed he was comfortable using the kind of language that is familiar in evangelical churches and Bible studies by calling his faith "a personal commitment to Christ." He said that his time as a community organizer in decimated Chicago neighborhoods, supported in part by a Catholic group, brought him to a deeper faith and also convinced him that faith is useless without works.

"While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he declared.

I sure hope he is just using this to gain voters and that he will tone down the desire to bring religion into the government once he is elected.

Colorado ground zero for abortionists in November

The Denver Posts published this article:

Colo. fertilized egg measure backers submit signatures

a couple of weeks ago. This is a trick by the religious right to try to ban abortion (and along with it some forms of contraception, stem cell research, and in-vitro fertilization) in Colorado by masking it as a new definition of when Human Life starts.

Now, I've had a long history of siding with some aspects of the anti-abortionists (pro-lifers) because I can't stand late-term abortions (still legal here in Colorado). Unfortunately, people are not looking at this scientifically and are instead treating it as a religious argument only.

From a scientific standpoint, there is a fairly clear definition of when life ends (when there is no longer a recognizable brain wave pattern). The start of life should be measured the same way. This happens around the 20-21 week point or about when there is "quickening" (when the mother can feel the baby moving). And, more importantly, it is something that can be measured.

If they really want a fight they might be able to win, they should start there and see if that will pass the voters. What they have here will never fly (thankfully).

Ask Presidential Candidates

Over the past seven years Humanists have watched as the president and congress have repeatedly breached Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. But now you can act to prevent a continuation of this process.

At every opportunity you have, ask the candidates pointed questions on this issue. Or call on your local media to ask such questions. Write letters to the editor expressing church-state concerns. Request that your friends ask such questions. Let's make 2008 the year we begin to set things right as we publicly hold the feet of all presidential candidates to the proverbial fire.

Here are ten questions to draw from or to modify in your own words.

1. Leaders of the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

2. Do you think houses of worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7. Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9. Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

These suggested questions were developed by First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation. First Freedom First is cosponsored by the American Humanist Association and its allies in the community of reason. So we urge you to use one or more of these questions if you attend a Town Hall meeting or another event where candidates for office will be gathering.

Incompetent Gonzales finally gone

WASHINGTON (AP) - Alberto Gonzales, the nation's first Hispanic attorney general, announced his resignation Monday - ending a nasty, monthslong standoff over his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.

It is about damn time.

One of the few things the Republicans and Democrats have agreed on recently is the need for Gonzales to resign. He has proven incompetent at best and at worst a threat to the checks & balances that keep our democratic system alive by turning the justice department into a political arm under the Bush administration.

Now they need a real (read independent) leader who can clean up the mess. But, that isn't likely with the current administration's inability to admit any wrong.

More Americans accept creationism than evolution

This is shocking.
In June, a Gallop Poll showed that more Americans accept the hogwash called creationism than the scientifically-backed evolution. See the article:

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

There article is especially disconcerting because it states there is debate over the validity of evolution. The only place there is debate is in religious circles and where those circles interact with politics. There is no real scientific debate over it (other than the background dissenters that open communication often has).

It is astonishing to me that something as sound as evolution, backed by huge masses of data can be up for debate because people want to take a book written (and I use the term loosely) 2000 years ago as literal fact. How blind can people be?

It makes me want to back belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is just as valid of a belief as Creationism (and a lot more fun).

Separation of Church and State

Blogswarm is sponsoring a blog promotion about separation of church and state. This isn’t exactly on-topic for this blog, but it is an incredibly important topic. There are active organizations in this country who are trying to undermine the bedrock American stance on separation of church and state. If they succeed, our ability to believe as we want will evaporate. We will become a Christian Nation, which is exactly what they are after.

The most prominent recent successful actions undermining separation of church and state is the faith-based initiative President Bush has put in place and the politicizing of the judicial system. The first is using millions of dollars of taxpayer money to promote Christian values without the checks-and-balances the secular system has in place. The second is an attempt to institute faith-based laws by overloading the judicial system with judges who base their decisions on the Bible instead of the Constitution and rational thought.

If you doubt any of this, try reading any of the following books:

Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming
Damon Linker, Theocons
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Or read through some of the material at any of the following:

The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The First Freedom First Foundation
The American Humanist Association

Nontheists and Politics

It is accepted (though it shouldn't be) that a politician who declares himself or herself to be atheist (or any nontheist) is finished. The founding fathers would have been shocked at such a political environment. Many of them were nontheists themselves or at the very minimum thought that religion should be kept stickily separate from politics and it shouldn't matter whether the politician is religious or of what religion. As the following quote from George Washington in a treaty signed by John Adams says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Despite what some say, this is not a Christian nation, it is a secular nation with firm footing in an environment where everyone is allowed to believe and practice as they wish, including atheism.

This last week Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) publicly acknowledged he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, it said, makes him the highest-ranking elected official — and first congressman — to proclaim to be an atheist.

Roy Speckhardt of the AHA said: "With Stark's courageous public announcement of his nontheism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long."

Stark said he was "a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being." He also wrote "I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

Unitarian Universalism describes itself as creedless, allowing members to shape their beliefs based on personal experience rather than an authoritative statement of religious belief. Some members believe in God, but not all do.

Stark has represented Fremont in Congress since 1973 and chairs the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

So, is this brave, political suicide, or both? Certainly it is more honest. In both Sam Harris' recent book The End of Faith and Richard Dawkins recent book The God Delusion, the authors explain how statistically a high percentage of intelligent, college educated people are nontheists, yet 100% (until now) if congress and the senate say they are believers (593 total people). The conclusion is inescapable - either they are lying or they are stupid. It is great to see a politician trying to be honest

What is more important, however, is what do we need to do to get back to the secular, freedom from religious discrimination foundations that this country was built on?

Sean